Re: [AD] Small FAQ update

[Robert Ohannessian <ohannessian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:

> Patch rejected, problems:
>
> - you can't rely on css, the html version has to be readable with the
>  @ignore_css tag too, but is not because you strip basic <li> tags.

What is this @ignore_css switch? Why do we need it? Please let Netscape 
4 rest in piece.


> - I like the softer colors, but the ones for @@ are too eye straining,
>  in fact I prefer that section to not have any colors.

The problem I had with the previous color scheme was that your attention 
was attracted to the "see also" lines instead of the API or the docs. I 
just swapped colors around to try to balance this.


> - the patch doesn't work cleanly on current cvs version.

Fixed. Patch attached.

> Some time ago you, Peter and Stepan talked about xml-like formats for
> the documentation.

Yes. I still think it would be a good idea to do that. What stopped us 
were people (sorry, I forgot who exactly) claiming that we should use 
standard DOMs and tools to parse them instead of plain XML.

I also had written a small XML parser in C that can be used to parse 
the documentation. It's not very functional - just enough to understand 
HTML, and doesn't do any consistency checking (tag mismatches, etc).

> Clearly hacking makedoc now feels like necrophagy, so
> why don't we discuss in Alleg5 ML the new document format which should be
> flexible enough to support cosmetic changes and many other improvements?

I agree.

Attachment: doc_updt.zip
Description: Zip compressed data